Opinions of Ayn Rand's Philosophy

[Xroads]

Agree with most of what you say except for that.
Yes, we have a very strong drive for self-preservation, but the rest of what you say is part of who we are has been conditioned into us by society.
People protected their lands because of necessity, so they didn’t get killed or enslaved.
Aren’t we smart enough to work past all that shit and begin to build a society that isn’t 99% self-centered…because we are there in the US right now…I’m just waiting for the 1% to tick over.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is how we are conditioned, but how humans have evolved. Banning in small groups to protect one another from other groups fighting for resources and thus forming the beginnings of community and societies. I do believe this is human nature down to the very base of it.

[MENTION=13729]Free[/MENTION] hit on some good points but I agree with this the most

Although an altruistic society is a lovely thought, I don't believe it can ever truly work unless we all, at the same exact time, give up our drive to preserve and protect our immediate material worlds as well as our own personal ideologies. The ideas of individualism, rational thought, and self-interest, I think, are just as necessary as striving to improve our societies for the greater good.

The only way to change into a true altruistic society is if we give up what makes us individuals in the first place. And that, imo, is going directly against the basic human need/drive/instinct to gather our resources and protect them against other small groups of people to promote our own survival. As far as the 99% of the US being self-serving. I can agree with that, but I don't think that 99% of the US just steps on the backs of others. Not at all. I think a vast majority of us are just trying to make it on our world and protect what's ours.

 

[Skarekrow]

My issue with her is she made selfishness heroic in her characters and novels/novellas.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.— Gore Vidal, 1961

Reagan was an admirer, though Rand herself thought he was an idiot and said so.
Paul Ryan famously tried to distance himself from her though there is plenty of footage of him praising her.
Sen. Ron Johnson
Ron Paul
Not to forget Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Gov. Mark Sanford
Former Bush SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

All big fans.

I mean she wrote a book called “The Virtues of Selfishness”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that, and guess what…I’ve even read it, wow.

She grabbed the attention of people then and formed her own following called “The Collective” which some interesting thinkers have emerged from such as Alan Greenspan.
She demonized Plato and exalted Socrates.
Rand’s thinking was that to equate one’s selfishness, vanity, and egotism with one’s integrity liberated the young people from the struggle to distinguish selfishness, vanity, and egotism.
Many politicians have used her philosophies to justify the self-centered deeds they have done while also steering well clear of Rand’s views on God, specifically that she was a staunch atheist.

“I am against God. I don’t approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.”

But not inconstantly, she considered herself to be her own God, her own selfish God. (A philosophy also shared by the Church of Satan I might add)

I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”

Rand was also a self-proclaimed male chauvinist.
She popularized the idea that we shouldn’t care about our fellow human beings because if they aren’t able to make it one their own, then they deserve to perish, they are worthless.
This is how she felt about the Native Americans, about the handicapped and mentally challenged.
She was a cold-hearted woman and I refuse to acknowledge that she did more good than positively reinforce what should be negative attributes in someone’s character.

 

[Skarekrow]

I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is how we are conditioned, but how humans have evolved. Banning in small groups to protect one another from other groups fighting for resources and thus forming the beginnings of community and societies. I do believe this is human nature down to the very base of it.

@Free hit on some good points but I agree with this the most

The only way to change into a true altruistic society is if we give up what makes us individuals in the first place. And that, imo, is going directly against the basic human need/drive/instinct to gather our resources and protect them against other small groups of people to promote our own survival. As far as the 99% of the US being self-serving. I can agree with that, but I don't think that 99% of the US just steps on the backs of others. Not at all. I think a vast majority of us are just trying to make it on our world and protect what's ours.

I agreed with everything else she had to say.
But there are groups and tribes, and whole societies that have existed in altruistic manners above the selfish deeds of a single person.
Most times such self-centered greedy and egotistic behavior was looked down upon by that society it existed in.
It existed here in the US for some time.
But not anymore.
Now it’s everyone for themselves…and it isn’t hard to turn on the TV and see this reflected in every aspect of our society now.
She helped created that, and for that, I think Rand is a terrible woman.

 

[JJJA]

I admire Rand's view that rational thinking is the key to a better life for each individual, and that altruism will never work because the individual will always value himself over the life and needs of a stranger. Rand did not consider herself to be her own 'God'. She hated the idea of a God, and like myself, saw 'God' as a supreme unalterable and unsearchable dictator and to which was exactly the sort of thing she spent her life trying to fight against. The idea of altruism (an idea which is vastly over-praised currently) is to give in to the temptation of wanting to have a constant care-giver that will cost you a few personal rights of self-ownership and freedoms, but will make sure you get the basic needs of self-preservation. There is nothing more caring for human kind in altruism that cannot be found in wanting to support the rights of the individual to flourish and think and earn for themselves.

 

[hush]

Agree with most of what you say except for that.
Yes, we have a very strong drive for self-preservation, but the rest of what you say is part of who we are has been conditioned into us by society.
People protected their lands because of necessity, so they didn’t get killed or enslaved.
Aren’t we smart enough to work past all that shit and begin to build a society that isn’t 99% self-centered…because we are there in the US right now…I’m just waiting for the 1% to tick over.

How do you think it has been conditioned into us by society?

Humans do have a drive to survive, for self-preservation. We do protect what is important to us - and I don't even do so out of necessity, necessarily. I protect, for instance, because it is right.

We exist, on a base level, to survive. Beyond that, it's what you choose to do with your life, what you choose to make out of that survival. You take care of yourself first, because you are no use to anyone if you have not taken care of yourself. Once you have done so, and only when you have done so, are you in any position to take care of others. People should take care of themselves.

 

[Skarekrow]

I admire Rand's view that rational thinking is the key to a better life for each individual, and that altruism will never work because the individual will always value himself over the life and needs of a stranger. Rand did not consider herself to be her own 'God'. She hated the idea of a God, and like myself, saw 'God' as a supreme unalterable and unsearchable dictator and to which was exactly the sort of thing she spent her life trying to fight against. The idea of altruism (an idea which is vastly over-praised currently) is to give in to the temptation of wanting to have a constant care-giver that will cost you a few personal rights of self-ownership and freedoms, but will make sure you get the basic needs of self-preservation. There is nothing more caring for human kind in altruism that cannot be found in wanting to support the rights of the individual to flourish and think and earn for themselves.

How does being a more altruistic person make you less of an individual?
I understand the idea of altruism as defined as YOU giving up something for someone ELSE.
How is something that you freely give to someone costing you your personal rights and freedoms?

I agree that on a basic fundamental level we all must bow down to the Maslow’s hierarchy of necessities, we certainly do not have the ability to be AS altruistic as we could be until some of those basic needs are met.
But to say that altruism itself is a negative thing, to say that giving a shit and doing something about it is a negative thing is silliness.

Oh, but we have forced altruism on our citizens! With social programs to help the poor and feed the hungry.
If that is a conflict for you personally, then perhaps you should consider moving somewhere that cares about it’s people less….like the US hahahaha.

 

[Xroads]

...
But there are groups and tribes, and whole societies that have existed in altruistic manners above the selfish deeds of a single person.
Most times such self-centered greedy and egotistic behavior was looked down upon by that society it existed in.
It existed here in the US for some time.
But not anymore.
Now it’s everyone for themselves…and it isn’t hard to turn on the TV and see this reflected in every aspect of our society now.
She helped created that, and for that, I think Rand is a terrible woman.

I can agree with this statement. But again, I do believe that these altruistic tribes are still very much in existence in the US today. Though much smaller tribes that we call family. Elsewhere in the world where altruistic indigenous tribes still exist are still a tribe at the core, and protect themselves and their resources against other invaders such as a neighboring tribe or even an entire country. I don't think Rand actually had that much influence as our societies have been functioning this way for eons. As far as what kind of person Ayn Rand was, I think she was an individual who fought for freedom of individualistic free thought. I don't agree with many of her views, but I completely support her right to be an individual.

There is nothing more caring for human kind in altruism that cannot be found in wanting to support the rights of the individual to flourish and think and earn for themselves.

I agree. And well said.

 

[Skarekrow]

How do you think it has been conditioned into us by society?

Humans do have a drive to survive, for self-preservation. We do protect what is important to us - and I don't even do so out of necessity, necessarily. I protect, for instance, because it is right.

We exist, on a base level, to survive. Beyond that, it's what you choose to do with your life, what you choose to make out of that survival. You take care of yourself first, because you are no use to anyone if you have not taken care of yourself. Once you have done so, and only when you have done so, are you in any position to take care of others. People should take care of themselves.

Again…we must serve Maslow’s pyramid in order to live and prosper.
Selfishness and greed are permeating our society…take a look around….if you don’ t make this much - you are categorized one way, if you don’t own this car you on’t get laid, if you don’t look a certain way (why do women wear makeup?) then you are unattractive, etc. etc.
Turn on the TV and I can just about guarantee that the next commercial will sneak in something to make you feel less…buy this, buy that, be this type of person not that, but underlying the message more and more is selfishness and greed.

 

[JJJA]

How does being a more altruistic person make you less of an individual?
I understand the idea of altruism as defined as YOU giving up something for someone ELSE.
How is something that you freely give to someone costing you your personal rights and freedoms?

I agree that on a basic fundamental level we all must bow down to the Maslow’s hierarchy of necessities, we certainly do not have the ability to be AS altruistic as we could be until some of those basic needs are met.
But to say that altruism itself is a negative thing, to say that giving a shit and doing something about it is a negative thing is silliness.

Oh, but we have forced altruism on our citizens! With social programs to help the poor and feed the hungry.
If that is a conflict for you personally, then perhaps you should consider moving somewhere that cares about it’s people less….like the US hahahaha.

Stop putting false words into people's mouths. You seem to do this often, and I must politely tell you to stop doing it. If any society is to perform an Altruistic policy, then by-definition it must take away a certain number of rights and finances due to the inevitable redistribution of wealth that would follow such reasoning. Individualism decreases its value in a person when they are forced to give up their wealth and particular freedoms for the benefit of random strangers.

 

[Skarekrow]

I can agree with this statement. But again, I do believe that these altruistic tribes are still very much in existence in the US today. Though much smaller tribes that we call family. Elsewhere in the world where altruistic indigenous tribes still exist are still a tribe at the core, and protect themselves and their resources against other invaders such as a neighboring tribe or even an entire country. I don't think Rand actually had that much influence as our societies have been functioning this way for eons. As far as what kind of person Ayn Rand was, I think she was an individual who fought for freedom of individualistic free thought. I don't agree with many of her views, but I completely support her right to be an individual.




I agree. And well said.

It wasn’t just the family structure once, there is a loss of a sense of community.
Neighbor’s rarely help neighbors…people don’t do things for others because it’s good and right, they expect to get paid or at the very least they film themselves being altruistic and post it on Youtube and Facebook so all their friends can see how great of a person they are…except that is incredibly self-centered and even though someone got something good out of it, it’s the idea that we must have a reward for our not acting like assholes that bothers me.

 

[Xroads]

How does being a more altruistic person make you less of an individual?
I understand the idea of altruism as defined as YOU giving up something for someone ELSE.
How is something that you freely give to someone costing you your personal rights and freedoms?

I agree that on a basic fundamental level we all must bow down to the Maslow’s hierarchy of necessities, we certainly do not have the ability to be AS altruistic as we could be until some of those basic needs are met.
But to say that altruism itself is a negative thing, to say that giving a shit and doing something about it is a negative thing is silliness.

Oh, but we have forced altruism on our citizens! With social programs to help the poor and feed the hungry.
If that is a conflict for you personally, then perhaps you should consider moving somewhere that cares about it’s people less….like the US hahahaha.

Our already bloated welfare and endless grants would beg to differ. In North Korea housing is free, but you can't choose where you live. Medical is free, but you can't choose your doctor or have any say in the care that is provided for you, education is free but you are limited in what you can study. The US is a Capitalistic society, but at least I can choose my village, have a say in medical treatment, and choose what I want to do in life among many other freedoms we take for granted daily. Freedom of choice is a very self-centered concept, but it IS still freedom. The only key is, you have to work for it. An altruistic society is impossible unless we give up our freedoms of individuality. I don't think many people find that a pleasing thought.

 

[Skarekrow]

Stop putting false words into people's mouths. You seem to do this often, and I must politely tell you to stop doing it. If any society is to perform an Altruistic policy, then by-definition it must take away a certain number of rights and finances due to the inevitable redistribution of wealth that would follow such reasoning. Individualism decreases its value in a person when they are forced to give up their wealth and particular freedoms for the benefit of random strangers.

I see…I wasn’t trying to put anything in your mouth either…this is what I gleaned from your paragraph, perhaps it was not clear enough for my tiny brain.
Listen, I’m not saying we should go full-blown Socialist or Communist, but those are the prices you pay to live in said society.
You are free to move to Canada or GB, or India if the “redistribution of wealth” is too great for you or anyone.
But most of those damned taxes we pay don’t go toward helping the poor…especially in the US, it goes to our military.
It’s goes to maintain our roads, to pay for the police, firefighters, etc.
And because of self-centered values that have been more and more prevalent in the US we have 60,000 bridges in need of repair and are deemed “dangerous”.
We have the worst income gap in our history right now…1 in 5 children in the US are food insecure.
We have asshole like Martin Skrelli who can legally jack up an AIDS pill and nothing happens but then when he defrauds Wall Street is arrested.
We have corporations who have an estimated $21 Trillion parked in offshore nontaxable accounts, and yet our govt. still gives them tax breaks to the tune of millions every year even though they are very profitable companies.
So maybe some redistribution is in order, or at least some rules that protect the rest of our society from the self-centeredness and greed Rand like to push.

Plenty of people don’t like where they live and the politics they live under, it doesn’t mean you just don’t pay your taxes.
If you don’t like that, people go live off the grid in a cabin in the woods and live how they want with no one to say otherwise.

 

[Xroads]

It wasn’t just the family structure once, there is a loss of a sense of community.
Neighbor’s rarely help neighbors…people don’t do things for others because it’s good and right, they expect to get paid or at the very least they film themselves being altruistic and post it on Youtube and Facebook so all their friends can see how great of a person they are…except that is incredibly self-centered and even though someone got something good out of it, it’s the idea that we must have a reward for our not acting like assholes that bothers me.

People DO do things for others because it is just the right thing to do. We just don't hear about it because they don't post it on YouTube and Facebook. It's never on the news, it's never shouted from the rooftops. The people that advertise it just want a pat on the back and someone to tell them what a great person they are for their own ego. I agree with you there 100%. But perhaps that's exactly what those people are doing, promoting it, encouraging it in others (unlikely).

 

[Skarekrow]

Our already bloated welfare and endless grants would beg to differ. In North Korea housing is free, but you can't choose where you live. Medical is free, but you can't choose your doctor or have any say in the care that is provided for you, education is free but you are limited in what you can study. The US is a Capitalistic society, but at least I can choose my village, have a say in medical treatment, and choose what I want to do in life among many other freedoms we take for granted daily. Freedom of choice is a very self-centered concept, but it IS still freedom. The only key is, you have to work for it. An altruistic society is impossible unless we give up our freedoms of individuality. I don't think many people find that a pleasing thought.

That’s because they are Communists.
And just because those things are provided to them doesn’t make their society an altruistic one.
Just because you provide social services for someone doesn’t make your society fall to shit or become less free.
Germany has free college tuition as do many countries…I would argue that this altruistic decision is also beneficial to their society in general by educating the general population.

You pay an estimated $33 tax dollars a year toward social services in the US, clearly we are being too generous.

 

[Skarekrow]

People DO do things for others because it is just the right thing to do. We just don't hear about it because they don't post it on YouTube and Facebook. It's never on the news, it's never shouted from the rooftops. The people that advertise it just want a pat on the back and someone to tell them what a great person they are for their own ego. I agree with you there 100%. But perhaps that's exactly what those people are doing, promoting it, encouraging it in others (unlikely).

But it IS being encouraged…it’s everywhere, we are just so conditioned to not pay attention to it.


[video=youtube;31xa0CLbcls]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=31xa0CLbcls[/video]

 

[Xroads]

That’s because they are Communists.
And just because those things are provided to them doesn’t make their society an altruistic one.
Just because you provide social services for someone doesn’t make your society fall to shit or become less free.
Germany has free college tuition as do many countries…I would argue that this altruistic decision is also beneficial to their society in general by educating the general population.

You pay an estimated $33 tax dollars a year toward social services in the US, clearly we are being too generous.

So what then is an altruistic society? Communism and Socialism fit the bill on paper. And we know the issues of both. Rand was against these forms of government because of the freedoms they take away from an individual to in turn provide for the masses. The US has some corruption, no doubt, but forming an altruistic society would mean to ask of people to give up rights and then to trust in the government to be free from greed and corruption. I don't think humans have evolved enough for this to ever work

 

[Stu]

The only things which are truly our own are our actions. It is telling that every religious system that I am familiar with requires a devotion to something other than ourselves. A glance at declining lifespans of poorly educated white males in the US points to a dearth of their regard for ideas or emotional ties beyond themselves.

I read the Fountain head a long time ago and don't really recall much but I do vividly recall the movie staring Gary Cooper (was that Atlas Shrugged?) where he, an architect, designed a building pro bono and then blew it up (no casualties) because a committee of collectivists made stupid changes to it (out of jealously of his genius). He stated that it was his to destroy, but in my opinion those who paid for the materials and did the actual work were stolen from, not to mention those that were counting on a place to live.

 

[Skarekrow]

So what then is an altruistic society? Communism and Socialism fit the bill on paper. And we know the issues of both. Rand was against these forms of government because of the freedoms they take away from an individual to in turn provide for the masses. The US has some corruption, no doubt, but forming an altruistic society would mean to ask of people to give up rights and then to trust in the government to be free from greed and corruption. I don't think humans have evolved enough for this to ever work

We did it after WWII.
It was the time of the most growth America has ever seen…we fixed out roads, built the highways system, people were paid well, and education was easily affordable though not free,

We are very corrupt now, just take a look at the $900 Million dollars the Kochs are spending (at least what we know publicly) on the 2016 election.
If the people don’t get to choose the candidates who then run-off to become President then how can we call ourselves a Democracy?
Count the popular votes and then we’ll see what really happens…but this will never come to fruition unless people demand a change.
And that change is removing as much big money from Congress and governmental influence as we can so we can return to a representative democracy and not a democracy representative of the wealthy.

 

[Skarekrow]

Now don’t get all butt hurt I posted an article, it isn’t that long…hehe.
I agree with the article that it all really boils down to your ability to empathize.
From Psychology Today:

Why Do Human Beings Do Good Things?
The Puzzle of Altruism

Altruism isn't always just disguised self-interest.
'Pure' altruism does exist.

​

In 2007, a construction worker named Wesley Autrey was standing on a subway platform in New York, when a young man nearby had an epileptic seizure and rolled on to the track.

Hearing the approach of a train, Wesley Autrey impulsively jumped down to try to save the young man, only to realise that the train was approaching too fast. Instead, he jumped on top of the young man’s body and pushed him down into a drainage ditch between the tracks.

The train operator saw them, but it was too late to stop: five cars of the train passed over their bodies.
Miraculously, both of them were uninjured.

Asked later by The New York Times why he had done it, Autrey said: ‘I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right.”
The question of why human beings are sometimes prepared to risk their own lives to save others has puzzled philosophers and scientists for centuries.

From an evolutionary point of view, altruism doesn’t seem to make any sense.
According to the modern Neo-Darwinian view, human beings are basically selfish.

After all, we are only really ‘carriers’ of thousands of genes, whose only aim is to survive and replicate themselves.
We shouldn’t be interested in sacrificing ourselves for others, or even in helping others.

It’s true that, in genetic terms, it’s not necessarily self-defeating for us to help people close to us, our relatives or distant cousins–they carry many of the same genes as us, and so helping them may help our genes to survive.

But what about when we help people who have no relation to us, or even animals?

Egoic Altruism

According to some psychologists, there is no such thing as ‘pure’ altruism.
When we help strangers (or animals), there must always be some benefit to us, even if we’re not aware of it.

Altruism makes us feel good about ourselves, it makes other people respect us more, or it might (so far as we believe) increase our chances of getting into heaven.

Or perhaps altruism is an investment strategy - we do good deeds to others in the hope that they will return the favor some day, when we are in need. (This is known as reciprocal altruism.)

According to evolutionary psychologists, it could even be a way of demonstrating our resources, showing how wealthy or able we are, so that we become more attractive to the opposite sex, and have enhanced reproductive possibilities.

Finally, evolutionary psychologists have also suggested that altruism towards strangers may be a kind of mistake, a ‘leftover’ trait from when human beings lived in small groups with people we were genetically closely related to.

Of course, we felt an instinct to help other members of our group, because our own survival depended on the safety of the group as a whole, and because, more indirectly, this would support the survival of our genes.

We don't live in small tribes of extended family anymore, but we habitually behave as if we are, helping the people around us as if we are related to them.
What all these explanations have in common is that they are really attempts to explain away altruism.

They remind me of my attempts to excuse my indolence when my wife comes home and finds that I haven’t done the DIY jobs I promised to.
They’re attempts to make excuses for altruism: ‘Please excuse my kindness, but I was really just trying to look good in the eyes of other people.’

‘Sorry for helping you, but it’s a trait I picked up from my ancestors thousands of years ago, and I just can’t seem to get rid of it.’

Pure Altruism

Now, I don’t doubt that these reasons apply sometimes.
Many acts of kindness may be primarily –or just partly–motivated by self-interest.

But is it naive to suggest that ‘pure’ altruism can exist as well?
An act of ‘pure’ altruism such as Wesley Autrey’s may make you feel better about yourself afterwards, and it may increase other people’s respect for you, or increase your chances of being helped in return at a later point.

But it’s possible that, at the very moment when the act takes place, your only motivation is an impulsive unselfish desire to alleviate suffering.
Yesterday, I was about to have a shower, and saw a spider near the plug hole of our bath.

I got out of the shower, found a piece of paper, gently encouraged the spider on to it, and scooped it out of danger.
Why did I do this?

Perhaps in the hope that a spider would do the same for me in the future?
Or that the spider would tell his friends what a great person I am?

Or, more seriously, perhaps it was the result of moral conditioning, a respect for living things and an impulse to ‘do good’ which was ingrained in me by my parents? (Although come to think of it, my parents didn’t teach me those things...)

No, I think this simple act was motivated by empathy.
I empathized with the spider as another living being, who was entitled to stay alive just as I was.

And I believe that empathy is the root of all pure altruism.
Sometimes empathy is described as a cognitive ability to see the world through another person’s eyes, but I think it’s actually much more than that.

In my view, the capacity for empathy shows that, in essence, all human beings - and in fact all living beings–are interconnected.
At some deep level, we are expressions of the same consciousness. (As several philosophers of consciousness–such as David Chalmers–have suggested, it may be that rather than producing consciousness, the function of the brain may be to ‘receive’ or ‘channel’ a consciousness which exists outside the brain, and which in fact permeates the whole universe.

Consciousness may be a fundamental force of the universe, like gravity.)

Altruism and Connectedness

It’s this fundamental oneness which makes it possible for us to identify with other people, to sense their suffering and respond to it with altruistic acts.
We can sense their suffering because, in a sense, we are them.

And because of this common identity, we feel the urge to alleviate other people’s suffering - and to protect and promote their well-being –just as we would our own. In the words of the 19th century German philosopher Schopenhauer, ‘My own true inner being actually exists in every living creature, as truly and immediately known as my own consciousness in myself...This is the ground of compassion upon which all true, that is to say unselfish, virtue rests, and whose expression is in every good deed.’

In other words, there is no need to make excuses for altruism.
Instead, we should celebrate it as a transcendence of seeming separateness.

Rather than being unnatural, altruism is an expression of our most fundamental nature–that of connectedness.



Steve Taylor PhD is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.
He is the author of Back to Sanity: Healing the Madness of the Human Mind(link is external). stevenmtaylor.com(link is external)

​

 

[JJJA]

Long live the 1st Amendment.